Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 119, Issue 2, pp 1227–1254 | Cite as

Zero impact: a large-scale study of uncitedness

  • Jeppe NicolaisenEmail author
  • Tove Faber Frandsen
Article
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents a large-scale study of the phenomenon ‘uncitedness’. A literature review indicates that uncitedness is related to at least three factors: Field, document type, and time. To explore these factors and their mutual influence further, and at much larger scale than previous studies, the paper focuses on seven subject areas (arts and humanities; social sciences; computer science; mathematics; engineering; medicine; physics and astronomy), seven document types (articles; reviews; notes; letters; conference papers; books; book chapters), and a 20-year publication window (1996–2015). Documents are searched in Scopus, and retrieved year-by-year, discipline-by-discipline, and for each individual document type (total: 29,472,184 documents; 7,508,741 uncited documents). The results show great variance in uncitedness ratios between subject areas and document types. This is probably caused by a somewhat tacitly agreed upon genre hierarchy existing in all subject areas, yet with important local traits and differences. The importance of the time-dimension is documented. Time to first citation varies a great deal between subject areas, and the uncitedness ratio is consequently shown to be quite sensitive to the length of citation windows.

Keywords

Uncitedness Subject areas Document types Citation windows 

References

  1. Arsenault, C., & Larivière, V. (2015). Is paper uncitedness a function of the alphabet? Paper presented at the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference, ISSI 2015.Google Scholar
  2. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Burrell, Q. L. (2012). Alternative thoughts on uncitedness. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1466–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burrell, Q. L. (2013). A stochastic approach to the relation between the impact factor and the uncitedness factor. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 676–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton, R. E., & Kebler, R. W. (1960). The “half-life” of some scientific and technical literatures. American Documentation, 11(1), 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cuenca, A. M. B., Barbosa, M. M. A. L., Oliveira, K., Quinta, F., Alvarez, M. D. C. A., & França, I. J. (2017). Uncited articles in Brazilian public health journals. Revista de Saúde Publica, 51, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drott, C. M. (1995). Reexamining the role of conference papers in scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(4), 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Egghe, L. (2013). The functional relation between the impact factor and the uncitedness factor revisited. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Egghe, L., Guns, R., & Rousseau, R. (2011). Thoughts on uncitedness: Nobel laureates and fields medalists as case studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(8), 1637–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frandsen, T. F., & Nicolaisen, J. (2017). Rejoinder: Nobel Prize effects in citation networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(12), 2844–2845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1972). Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines: Empirical findings for Psychology. Information Storage and Retrieval, 8(3), 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garvey, W. D., Lin, N., Nelson, C. E., & Tomita, K. (1972). Research studies in patterns of scientific communication: II. The role of the national meeting in scientific and technical communication. Information Storage and Retrieval, 8(4), 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gopalakrishnan, S., Gopalakrishnan, S., Bathrinarayanan, A. L., & Tamizhchelvan, M. (2015). Uncited publications in MEMS literature: A bibliometric study. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, 35(2), 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamilton, D. P. (1990). Publishing by-and for?-the numbers. Science, 250, 1331–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamilton, D. P. (1991). Research papers: Who’s uncited now? Science, 251, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hargens, L. L., & Bott, D. M. (1991). Letter to the editor. Science, 251, 1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heneberg, P. (2013). Supposedly uncited articles of Nobel laureates and Fields medalists can be prevalently attributed to the errors of omission and commission. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(3), 448–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ho, Y. S., & Hartley, J. (2017). Sleeping beauties in psychology. Scientometrics, 110(1), 301–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hsu, J. W., & Huang, D. W. (2012). A scaling between impact factor and uncitedness. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 391(5), 2129–2134.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hu, X. J., & Rousseau, R. (2013). Meeting abstracts: A waste of space? Current Science, 105(2), 150–151.Google Scholar
  21. Hu, Z., & Wu, Y. (2014). Regularity in the time-dependent distribution of the percentage of never-cited papers: An empirical pilot study based on the six journals. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 136–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar
  23. Kamat, P. V. (2018). Most cited versus uncited papers. What do they tell us? ACS Energy Letters, 3(9), 2134–2135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koenig, M. E. (1983). Bibliometric indicators versus expert opinion in assessing research performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34(2), 136–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Law, R., Lee, H. A., & Au, N. (2013). Which journal articles are uncited? The case of the Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research and the Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 18(6), 661–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li, J. (2013). Uncited SSCI publications in China. Current Science, 104(11), 1462–1463.Google Scholar
  27. Liang, L., Zhong, Z., & Rousseau, R. (2015). Uncited papers, uncited authors and uncited topics: A case study in library and information science. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu, L., & Danziger, R. S. (1996). Fate of conference abstracts. Nature, 383, 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lou, W., & He, J. (2015). Does author affiliation reputation affect uncitedness? Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mackenzie, I. S. (2009). Citedness, uncitedness, and the murky world between. Paper presented at the 27th international conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, CHI 2009, Boston, MA. Google Scholar
  31. Mavrogenis, A. F., Quaile, A., Pećina, M., & Scarlat, M. M. (2018). Citations, non-citations and visibility of International Orthopaedics in 2017. International Orthopaedics, 42(11), 2499–2505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nane, T. (2015). Time to first citation estimation in the presence of additional information. In A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A. A. A. Salah, & C. Sugimoto (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference (ISSI-2015) (pp. 249–260). Istanbul: Bogazici University Printhouse. ISBN: 978-975-518-381-7.Google Scholar
  33. Pendlebury, D. A. (1991). Letter to the editor. Science, 251, 1410–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Price, D. J. D. S. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenberg, P. (2000). Chardin. London: Royal Academy of Arts.Google Scholar
  36. Rosenkrantz, A. B., Chung, R., & Duszak, R., Jr. (2018). Uncited research articles in popular United States general radiology journals. Academic Radiology, 1, 11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.04.011.Google Scholar
  37. Sen, R., & Patel, P. (2012). Citation rates of award-winning ASCE papers. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 138(2), 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tahmasebi, S., Foroughi, Z., & Alizadeh-Navaei, R. (2017). Comparing the levels of non-citation of Iranian journals on health in Persian and English in scopus database. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, 26(146), 165–172.Google Scholar
  40. Tang, R. (2008). Citation characteristics and intellectual acceptance of scholarly monographs. College and Research Libraries, 69(4), 356–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thelwall, M. (2016). Are there too many uncited articles? Zero inflated variants of the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 622–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2004). Demographers and their journals: Who remains uncited after ten years? Population and Development Review, 30(3), 489–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Leeuwen, T. N., & Moed, H. F. (2005). Characteristics of journal impact factors: The effects of uncitedness and citation distribution on the understanding of journal impact factors. Scientometrics, 63(2), 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Raan, A. F. (2015). Dormitory of physical and engineering sciences: Sleeping beauties may be sleeping innovations. PLoS ONE, 10(10), e0139786.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wallace, M. L., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2009). Modeling a century of citation distributions. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic acids: A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171, 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yamashita, Y., & Yoshinaga, D. (2014). Influence of researchers’ international mobilities on publication: A comparison of highly cited and uncited papers. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1475–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhao, S. X. (2015). Uncitedness of reviews. Current Science, 109(8), 1377–1378.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagen SDenmark
  2. 2.University of Southern DenmarkKoldingDenmark

Personalised recommendations